https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-45941552
Seems as if the women are become more militant up in scotland wanting equal pay for what they or the unions see as equal work, problem is where is the cash to pay them out going to come from, Birmingham recently had to sell a lot of assets to pay their staff off.
Strangely they seemed happy enough to accept the job on their present wage rates, and how do you compare a bin man or road workers job to a care worker or canteen assistant, both have different levels of skill required ones based outside in all weathers and the other inside undercover and warm, there are probably many other jobs people can try and equalize in the skill base, which cant really be equalized.
problem is where is the cash to pay them out going to come from, Birmingham recently had to sell a lot of assets to pay their staff off.
Pay cuts for the men? Meet in the middle?
Strangely they seemed happy enough to accept the job on their present wage rates,
Yes of course they would have turned down a proper rate....
and how do you compare a bin man or road workers job to a care worker or canteen assistant, both have different levels of skill required
Comparable market analysis?
ones based outside in all weathers and the other inside undercover and warm, there are probably many other jobs people can try and equalize in the skill base, which cant really be equalized.
How do you weight skills, mental stress and weather there? Does weather weigh more for you?
They were "guided" to accept the current pay rate by their union (GMB) when Labour were in power in Glasgow Council. Hence the cries of hypocrisy now that Richard Leonard is sending messages of support to them.
and your solution Scotroutes? 😉
2006 this started when labour ran Glasgow IIRC and Glasgow council under labour spent millions on court action to try to stop the equal pay claim
and your solution TJ, I'm sure the workers are more bothered about equal pay than a moral high ground victory....
and your solution Scotroutes?
I'd start by selling the Dali.
My solution - simple. Equal pay for work of equal value combined with a fair taxation system that allows councils to raise money and pay properly. these are mainly low paid manual workers and probably by meeting the equal pay claim there would be a significant saving in tax credits etc
Or dare I say it? Independence for scotland thus and end to fake austerity that has led to massive cuts in council budgets?
Is this really a gender equality pay thing?
My understanding is those on job share or split shifts are being paid a lower rate be they men or women. Therefore men and women doing <span style="text-decoration: underline;">exactly</span> the same job with the same hours get the same rate (ie male and female carers get the same or male and female road workers get the same).
Nothing stops either gender doing either job. Does the fact the women tend to one role and men tend to the other make it sexist if there are no barriers imposed by the council stopping either gender from doing either role?
Edit: Personally I don't think that job share or split shift workers should get a lower hourly rate than those doing the <span style="text-decoration: underline;">same</span> job full time.
OP - I don't think it's militant from the strikers. It's simply getting paid what a court a year ago agreed they should have been paid.
All the process of comparing jobs and skills has been done, over many years.
Perhaps OP we can decide that you should pay extra tax to fund it. But only you. That's fair I think. In the same way these workers have been discriminated against. As I said, a court has ruled in this.
Glasgow has spent a fortune in money and effort fighting this. Perhaps that would have been better spent on paying the wages people are due.
As I understand it there was an exercise undertaken to 'score' jobs on the value that they bring to the council/society, these jobs were then put into bands accordingly. This included roles such as cleaning, cooking/food serving, care workers, waste collection, grave digging, landscaping etc amoungst others. Once these jobs were 'scored', it could be seen that there were differences in pay between jobs in the same bands. It was mostly women (70%+) who were in roles that were paid less than the roles that were mostly done by men in the same band. Rightly this was deemed as sexist/discrimintaion and it has been agreed to compensate them.
The strike today is due to the process not progressing at a fast enough pace. I think it is right that these people, vast majority who are women, are compensated for the discrimination they have had.
As far as I know, you can have two jobs within the same pay/value band with a difference in the perceived hardship that the jobs entail. The question now is, why would a (traditionally) man now take on a more physicaly demanding role, based outside and in all weathers, when he can take on a role he would perceive as easier now for the same money that was traditionally done by women?
Where I work, although not public sector, we have a similar spread of roles. As pay between say a specialist cleaner working indoors (mostly women), and a operative working outside (mostly men) gets closer, the percentage of men applying for and getting the less physically demanding roles is increasing and in a few years this could be a 50%-50% split. The opposite is not true though. We cannot get women to apply for the tradionally male roles at all, maybe 1 in a 100 only. Of course there are other reasons for this, not just the physical requirements. The question I don't see being asked though is what will happen to the women who now might not get the cleaning job, widely regarded as an easily accessible/low barrier to entry job for women requiring flexible work? There isn't a great deal of options at that end of the job market. Also what happens to the roles men normaly carry out, but now are not attractive anymore since they can get easier work for the same pay? As vacanices are mounting up (we have several vacancies open unfilled for about 7 weeks now that we are struggling to fill) these roles are going to need to be filled by someone, the only way is to make them more attractive, but how can this be done without increasing the pay offered, starting the whole cycle again?
I’d start by selling the Dali.
Really? That would be a terrible outcome for the city plus I don’t think it would come near to raising enough money.
jom,81
The equal pay for equal jobs was done a while ago. the focus now is on equal pay for work of equal value
equal pay for work of equal value
Which IMO isn't enough factors to come to a balance. As rene alludes to, this means that for two jobs of equal value and equal pay, the jobs in good conditions will become sought after and the equivalent jobs in poor conditions will become harder to fill.
The equal pay for equal jobs was done a while ago. the focus now is on equal pay for work of equal value
Great idea in theory but far harder to define. And will almost always be a subjective decision.
We cannot get women to apply for the traditionally male roles at all, maybe 1 in a 100 only. Of course there are other reasons for this, not just the physical requirements. The question I don’t see being asked though is what will happen to the women who now might not get the cleaning job, widely regarded as an easily accessible/low barrier to entry job for women requiring flexible work? ............ As vacancies are mounting up (we have several vacancies open unfilled for about 7 weeks now that we are struggling to fill) these roles are going to need to be filled by someone, the only way is to make them more attractive, but how can this be done without increasing the pay offered, starting the whole cycle again?
Speaking in generalities, are these women currently unemployed? Aren't they required to show that they are applying of and interviewing for jobs as a condition for receiving benefits?
Other possibilities:
They have all found other public or private sector work suitable for their skill set, in which case the value of the unfilled role is higher than estimated.
They have applied and been rejected from these roles, indicating that they are unable to complete the task at hand. As the men could transition to the cleaning roles, but the women could not transition the other way, then the banding has been done incorrectly, and the former-man-job is of higher value and the applicant pool is different.
The equal pay for equal jobs was done a while ago. the focus now is on equal pay for work of equal value
Ah, ok then. Not what the two ladies interviewed on radio 4 yesterday were saying. It was all about unfair gender pay gap and how only the women workers were being shafted.
Still, as Rene says even if in the same pay band (based on value) the jobs perceived to be less attractive due to working conditions will need an incentive to get people to do them and that can only be either financial or with enhanced benefits such as more leave etc thus bringing us full circle.
Still, as Rene says even if in the same pay band (based on value) the jobs perceived to be less attractive due to working conditions will need an incentive to get people to do them and that can only be either financial or with enhanced benefits
Proper mental, what kind of halfwit thought it would be a good idea to assign subjective 'values' to roles that don't match the market rate.
Do we know where the policy originally came from?
<p>2006 this started when labour ran Glasgow IIRC and Glasgow council under labour spent millions on court action to try to stop the equal pay claim</p>
<p>Yes, and it was upposedly settled by the now SNP run GCC last year however nothing has been forthcoming barring a Coming Soon(TM) placeholder.</p>
<p>Or dare I say it? Independence for scotland thus and end to fake austerity that has led to massive cuts in council budgets?</p>
<p>Since when did Westminster set our council budgets?</p><p>Aye, fake austerity but not so austere that we couldn't afford an M74, M80 and M8 extension plus the new Queensferry crossing. All whilst freezing council tax.</p><p>You talk a good talk but SNP are just as big a bunch of shitehawks as any other party, they just happen to be flavour of the month. Take my local MSP, Kenneth Gibson, one of the top expense claimers who has brought f*** all in the way of jobs or prospects to North Ayrshire in the last 11 years. FWIW his wife hasn't done particularly much since being made an MP either. You can blame the previous Labour administration all you like but the fact remains that the SNP have sat on their arses doing nothing in the intervening period and people are marching today.</p>
So a male or female cleaner gets a basic minimum wage, they applied for the job knowing the wage rate, a refuse collector gets paid more, a cleaner male or female could have applied for that job as refuse collector but didnt have the physical strength didnt want to work outside, or get dirty, so why should they suddenly be paid more from a cleaners wage to a refuse collectors job.
The real irony is that in order to protest against unfair treatment of women they go on strike which closes all the schools and nurseries and suspends care services for two days.
Who exactly do they think is having to stay off work and look after the kids and the folk who need the care ? ...,because I’m pretty sure that, for the most part, it’s probably not men who have had to explain to their employer why they need two days off with no notice